The
Adult Self-Report (ASR) assesses adaptive functioning, personal
strengths, and diverse behavioral, emotional, social, and
thought problems and substance use on the basis of self-reports
by 18-59-year-olds. The parallel Adult Behavior Checklist
(ABCL) assesses most of the same aspects of functioning on
the basis of reports by collaterals (spouse, partner, family
member, friend, therapist, etc.) who know the adult who is
being assessed. Scales for scoring the problem items include
eight empirically based syndromes, which have been supported
by confirmatory factor analyses of population samples from
many societies (Ivanova et al., 2015a, b). The syndromes are
designated as Anxious/Depressed, Withdrawn, Somatic Complaints,
Thought Problems, Attention Problems, Aggressive Behavior,
Rule-Breaking Behavior, and Intrusive. Problems
are also scored on DSM-oriented, Obsessive-Compulsive, Sluggish
Cognitive Tempo, Internalizing, Externalizing, and Total Problems
scales. Adaptive functioning scales include Friends, Spouse/Partner,
Family, Job (for people who have had paid work in the preceding
6 months), and Education (for people who have been enrolled
in the preceding 6 months). The Personal Strengths
scale comprises items such as I make good use of my opportunities
and I work up to my ability. Substance use scales
assess tobacco use, days drunk, and use of drugs for non-medical
purposes over the preceding 6 months.

To
test similarities and differences in problems and strengths
reported for people in different societies, Rescorla et al.
(2016a, b) compared ASR scores for population samples in 17
societies (N=10,197) and ABCL scores for population
samples in 14 societies (N=8,322). Most effect sizes
for societal differences on problem and adaptive functioning
scales were small to medium. However, effect sizes for Personal
Strengths were much larger for both the ASR (effect size =
34% of variance) and ABCL (effect size = 25% of variance).
The much larger effect sizes for Personal Strengths reflected
much greater homogeneity of ratings within societies than
was found for problems and adaptive functioning.

Additional
analyses of the ASR data revealed that Personal Strengths
scores were affected more by societal differences (effect
size = 14% of variance) and culture cluster (e.g., Confucian
vs. Latin Europe) differences (effect size = 12% of variance)
than were problem scores (societal effect sizes = 3-5%; culture
cluster effect sizes = 0.02-0.03% for Internalizing, Externalizing,
and Total Problems). In other words, societal and cultural
differences had moderate effects on Personal Strengths scores
but very small effects on problem scores. Despite the larger
effects of societal and cultural differences on Personal Strengths
scores, individual differences within societies and culture
clusters nevertheless accounted for most (74%) of the variance
in Personal Strengths scores, albeit less than the 95-97%
accounted for by individual differences in Internalizing,
Externalizing, and Total Problems scores.

Rescorla
et al. (2016b) also computed cross-informant agreement between
ASR and ABCL scores in 14 societies where the same individuals
were assessed with both forms (N=8,302). Averaged across all
14 societies, the mean cross-informant correlation was .47.
For problem items that had counterparts on the ASR and ABCL,
the mean cross-informant correlation between mean item ratings
averaged across the 14 societies was .92. This indicated almost
total self- and collateral agreement in items receiving high,
medium, and low ratings in each society. However, item rating
agreement varied widely within self/collateral dyads in every
society. In other words, even though the items functioned
similarly for ASR and ABCL raters across societies, ASR-ABCL
dyads within each society varied widely in their agreement
on ratings of particular items for the person who was being
assessed.